Sri Lanka’s proposed extension of judges’ retirement ages by two years has emerged as a major constitutional controversy, raising questions about judicial independence, parliamentary authority and the protection of democratic institutions.
The Cabinet has approved a proposal to increase the retirement age of judges serving in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and other courts. The proposal will now move through the legislative process, beginning with preparation by the Legal Draftsman before obtaining clearance from the Attorney General.
The proposed amendment seeks to change Article 107(5) of the Constitution, which currently sets the retirement age of Supreme Court judges at 65 years. Under the proposed reform, judges of the country’s highest court would remain in office until they reach 67 years.
The retirement age of Court of Appeal judges would also be increased from 63 to 65 years. Meanwhile, government sources have indicated that similar amendments may be introduced concerning judges serving in lower courts.
At present, High Court judges retire at 61 years, while Magistrates and District Court judges have a retirement age of 60 years.
The government’s decision has divided opinion within the legal sector. Supporters of the proposal argue that retaining senior judges for longer periods would strengthen judicial expertise and improve the functioning of courts. They maintain that experienced judges are essential to maintaining consistency and efficiency in the legal system.
However, opponents argue that judicial tenure is closely connected to constitutional independence. Legal professionals and associations have raised concerns that extending retirement ages could have consequences beyond administrative reform and may influence the independence of the judiciary.
The main legal challenge is expected during the pre-enactment stage. Once the bill is published in the Gazette and tabled in Parliament, individuals and organizations such as the Bar Association of Sri Lanka can petition the Supreme Court within 14 days.
The Supreme Court will then determine whether the amendment requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament or whether it affects the sovereignty of the people guaranteed under Article 3 of the Constitution.
Those challenging the amendment are expected to argue that judicial independence forms part of the people’s sovereignty. They may contend that changes to judicial tenure should not be made without wider public approval through a referendum.
If the Supreme Court determines that a referendum is necessary, the government would face a major political challenge, as parliamentary approval alone would not be sufficient.
However, if the amendment secures a two-thirds majority in Parliament and receives the Speaker’s assent, it will become law. At that stage, Sri Lanka’s legal system prevents any further judicial challenge against the enacted legislation.
This restriction places enormous importance on the Supreme Court’s pre-enactment review. The coming constitutional debate will therefore determine whether the proposed retirement extension becomes a reform aimed at strengthening the judiciary or a change that raises new concerns about constitutional safeguards.
The final outcome will likely shape the future debate on judicial independence, constitutional amendments and the balance of power between state institutions in Sri Lanka.
The post Two-Year Judicial Extension Sparks Battle over Constitutional Power appeared first on LNW Lanka News Web.
